Orissa High Court
Babaji Sahoo vs Ntpc Ltd on 12 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 2227 of 2023
Babaji Sahoo .... Appellant
Mr. Kishore Kumar Jena, Advocate
-versus-
NTPC Ltd., Talcher Super Thermal .... Respondents
Power Station (TSTPS), Angul and
others
Mr. Aditya Narayan Das,
Advocate for Respondent No.1,
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Pattanaik,
Advocate for Respondents No.5 to 9 and
Mr. K. C. Kar, Government Advocate for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 12.11.2024
0. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. We have heard Mr. Kishore Kumar Jena, learned counsel for
the appellant, Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, learned counsel
representing the contesting respondent No.1, Mr. Bijaya Kumar
Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.5
to 9 and Mr. K. C. Kar, learned Government Advocate for the State
of Odisha.
3. We are of the considered view that filing of the present intra-
Court appeal is an abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to
be dismissed with cost in the background of the facts, which are
being set out hereunder.
4. Respondent No.1-NTPC Limited, Talcher Super Thermal
Power Station (TSTPS), At-Deepsikha in the district of Angul
(Odisha), through its General Manager had filed a writ petition
giving rise to W.P.(C) No.32131 of 2011. In the said case, the
following interim order was passed on 23.07.2013:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The NTPC Ltd. is the petitioner in this writ
petition and a prayer s made therein for quashing of
Annexures-1 and 2, which are judgments in RFA
No.28 of 2004 passed by the learned Addl. District
Judge, Talcher and in T.S. no.25 of 2000 passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talcher.
3. The appellate court by the said impugned order
under Annexure-1 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-
opp. Parties 4 to 6 by confirming their right, title and
interest over the disputed property and granting a
decree of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from entering into the suit property. The
suit property consists of Ac.0.45 decimals comprising
of three plots, i.e., plot nos.591, 593 and 595/599
under hal khata no.87 in village Ambapal. Though the
State was a party to the suit as the land was earlier
recorded in the name of the State, but the present
petitioner was not a party to the said suit.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the
suit property, land measuring Ac.0.23 decimals was
handed over by the State to the NTPC-petitioner and
when the petitioner wanted to lay a road on the said
land, the opp. Parties-plaintiffs objected to such
action for which, the petitioner was compelled to file
the present writ petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the
respective parties, this Court finds that out of the said
land measuring Ac.0.23 decimals, Ac.0.18 decimals
have been handed over by the State to the NTPC-
petitioner to be occupied by it and with regard to rest
Ac.0.05 decimals, permission was accorded by the
Government to the NTPC-petitioner to possess the
same. In a similar case, this Court in order to solve
the problem directed the State Government to pay
compensation to the land owner as payable under the
Land Acquisition Act along with solatium and interest
etc. for the portion of the land acquired by initiating a
proceeding under the L.A. Act, within a stipulated
period. In the instant case, admittedly, no land
acquisition proceeding has been initiated, but a part
of the land of the opp. Parties has been delivered to
the NTPC-petitioner, as stated above, by the State.
6. I, therefore, direct the opp. Parties 1 to 3-State
to initiate a land acquisition proceeding with regard
to the said Ac.0.23 decimals of land, which has been
handed over to the NTPC-petitioner, title over which
has been declared in favour of the opp. Parties
subsequently in the appeal and the said judgment has
become final.
7. The land acquisition proceeding shall
commence from the date of issuance of notice under
section 4(1) of the L.A. Act and the Land Acquisition
Officer shall pass an award under Section 11 of the
said Act in respect of said Ac.0.23 decimals handed
over the NTPC-petitioner. The entire process shall be
completed within a period of three months from
today. It is further directed that the land consisting of
Ac.0.23 decimals, which has been handed over to the
NTPC-petitioner shall be demarcated by the Land
Acquisition Officer in presence of the NTPC and opp.
Party No.6, who according to Mr. Mishra, will
represent all the plaintiffs. The date of demarcation
shall be notified to both the parties by the Land
Acquisition Officer. To avoid confusion, the Land
Acquisition Officer is further directed to demarcate
the balance Ac.0.22 decimals of land also, which will
be owned and possessed by the plaintiffs-Opposite
Parties. The award as would be passed and
compensation as would be determined shall be paid
to the opp. Parties 4 to 6 immediately after three
months and, if they so like, they may receive the
compensation with objection, and in such event,
reference may be made under Section 18 of the Act in
accordance with law. The land acquisition
proceeding shall be construed to have been initiated
on the requisition of the NTPC-petitioner and the
payment required to be made by the NTPC-petitioner
for the value of the land shall also be deposited by the
NTPC-petitioner if no surplus amount, out of the
amount already deposited by NTPC is available with
the Land Acquisition Officer.
Till finalization of the award to be passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer and payment to be made to the
opp. Parties 4 to 6, status quo over the entire
property of Ac. 0.45 decimals shall be maintained by
all the parties.
Put up this matter on 02.12.2013 in my Chambers at
1.40 PM for further orders.
A copy of this order will be furnished to the learned
counsel for the State. "
4.1. More than nine years thereafter, the appellant filed an
interlocutory application vide I. A. No.3881 of 2022 seeking
modification of the said order dated 23.07.2013 to disburse the
compensation amount in favour of opposite party No.4 instead of
opposite parties No.4 to 6 to the writ proceeding. The said
application has been dismissed by an order dated 09.03.2023 by the
learned Single Judge. Further, learned Single Judge disposed of the
writ petition in view of the orders dated 19.07.2013 and 23.07.2013
expressing the opinion that nothing remained to be adjudicated
upon. The appellant preferred a writ appeal before this Court giving
rise to W.A. No.670 of 2023 challenging the said order dated
09.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.32131 of 2011. The said writ appeal was dismissed on
27.04.2023. After dismissal of W.A. No.670 of 2023, the present
writ appeal has been filed challenging the same order of the learned
Single Judge dated 09.03.2023 on the ground that the said writ
appeal (W.A. No.670 of 2023) was dismissed on technical grounds
and, therefore, the appellant could file another appeal challenging
the same order of the learned Single Judge.
5. The present intra-Court appeal in the aforesaid background is
thoroughly misconceived and is dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand) to be deposited by the appellant in the
account of Orissa High Court Legal Services Committee within two
months from today.
6. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
M. Panda
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
